Legendary Ambassador Roasts Washington's Insane Russia Policy

Jack Matlock makes the case for the United States reaching a practical compromise with Russia

James Carden

(The Nation)

6 hours ago | 720 6

This article originally appeared in The Nation

---

Just as the Beltway's legions of neo–Cold Warriors were working themselves up into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation over the Obama administration's refusal to (so far, anyway) arm America's purported "allies" in Kiev, one of the Cold War's wise men reappeared in Washington last week.

At a gathering sponsored by the Committee for the Republic, which was formed by an elite group of former Washington officials in response to George W. Bush's foreign policy adventurism, Jack Matlock spoke for nearly an hour at the National Press Club urging the assembled not to fall prey to the Manichaeistic view of the current crisis in relations between the United States and Russia.

Matlock, 85, knows of what he speaks. He began his thirty-five-year career in the Foreign Service translating dispatches between Washington and Moscow at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. He was present at nearly every US-Soviet summit between 1972–91 and served as US ambassador to Russia under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush from 1987–91.

Given his pivotal role in helping to end the four-decade Cold War, Matlock brings the long view so sorely missing from the current debate over Russia policy in Washington. For him Washington's "group-think" on Russia is "difficult to comprehend." He told the committee's rapt, well-heeled audience of former office holders, political appointees and former spooks that as recently as a year ago he dismissed talk of a "new Cold War" as "silly"; after all, that was a worldwide ideological contest between two relatively equal military superpowers. Yet over the past year, Matlock told the group, he has had occasion to revise his view, especially in light of the debate currently being waged in Washington over whether to arm the regime in Kiev.

Something is amiss, according to the ambassador, when heretofore serious voices in Washington believe that arming Kiev is a relatively consequence-free policy choice because they insist on viewing Russia as "a regional power." To Matlock's way of thinking, this is an error of the first order. "No one with ICBM's is a regional power, not by any means."

Matlock stressed that his position—that the United States needs to find a modus vivendi with Russia in spite of the crisis in Ukraine—is not driven by any animus towards the Ukrainians, far from it. "I respect and know Ukraine; I know it, its people and its literature," but we in the West and in the United States in particular need to understand that for Russia, Ukraine is of "existential" importance.

According to the ambassador, who was present at some of the most pivotal discussions between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev during the Cold War's denouement, the taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion. Beginning with NATO's Madrid Summit (1994) at which NATO announced it would begin the process of bringing in new member states, through NATO's Bucharest Summit (2008), at which the alliance declared that "Georgia and Ukraine shall become members of NATO," the United States has reneged on the promise President George H.W. Bush made to Gorbachev at the Malta Summit (1989) not to expand NATO eastward.

Bush's promise not to expand the alliance eastward in exchange for the peaceful and orderly withdrawal of Soviet occupying troops in Eastern Europe was, according to Matlock, repeated by nearly all of the alliance members at the time. According to the ambassador, what today's Western leaders seem not to understand is that a Europe that is "whole and free" will not and cannot exist unless "Russia is part of the system." And yet, the United States has pursued policies toward Russia over the past two decades that can only be seen as exclusionary.

While NATO's decision to bring in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as full members in 1999 (the same year, incidentally, that NATO undertook an aerial bombardment of Russia's ally Serbia) would have been damaging enough to US-Russian relations, things got worse (as they tended to) under the second President Bush. Matlock reminded the assembled that President Putin was the first world leader to call Bush after the attack of 9/11 to offer support. The administration's decision to withdraw from the AMB Treaty was his repayment. Instead of working to minimize the mistrust between us, time and again, the Bush administration pursued policies that magnified it.

This, Matlock was at pains to point out, was the exact opposite approach taken by his former boss. For all his manifold faults, Reagan knew that as long as there was "distrust between us" it would be impossible to find common ground on issues as diverse as arms control, nuclear proliferation, the environment and emigration. Reagan, unlike his predecessors, knew that "we were too upfront on human rights" and that a private not public approach would yield more results. Reagan "never denigrated any Soviet leader by name…and dealt with them with respect." Today we have a President and Congress who routinely insult the leader of Russia. Yet Matlock warns: "you don't set up a public duel if you want to solve a crisis."

Would that men like Jack Matlock had the ear of President Obama today.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/18/3600

NYT Tries to Rationalize Ridiculous Propaganda about Ukraine Civil War

The best evidence the US has of a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Photographs from the Georgian War

 

Robert Mackey

(The New York Times)

 

 

Senator James Inhofe: "Russian tanks entered Ukraine...in Georgia"

This article originally appeared in The New York Times

---

When Senator James Inhofe took the floor of the Senate on Wednesday to argue for arming the Ukrainian military, he brought with him what he called indisputable proof of Moscow's support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine — a poster with three large photographs of "Russian tanks entering Ukrainian territory."

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said the images of "Russian troops in T-72 tanks, B.T.R. armored personnel carriers, and B.M.P. infantry fighting vehicles entering eastern Ukraine" constituted evidence of "an invasion of the Ukraine by Russia."

Video of Senator James Inhofe presenting photographs to the Senate on Wednesday of what he said were Russian tanks in Ukraine. Two of the images were in fact taken in 2008 during Russia's war with Georgia

While none of his colleagues saw anything amiss with the presentation, The Washington Free Beacon, a friendly conservative news outlet Mr. Inhofe's staff provided the same images to, acknowledged on Thursday that "serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of some of the photographs" by bloggers with access to Google Image search.

As Gawker reported, just hours after they were posted online by the Beacon, a group effort to vet the photographs had revealed that one of the images,taken in October, actually showed separatists in Ukraine, while the other two did show Russian troops, but driving near Russia's border with Georgiamore than six years ago during the brief conflict in South Ossetia.

 In a news release posted online in advance of his speech, Mr. Inhofe said that the photographs "were given to me by Lt. Col. Semen Semenchenko, the commander of Donbas Volunteer Assault Battalion and newly elected member of the parliament of Ukraine, during our meeting on 13 Nov. last year" in Washington.

Asked by Rosie Gray of BuzzFeed to explain how the error had come about, Senator Inhofe's office said that the images were provided during a meeting with a large delegation of Ukrainian commanders and officials who were in Washington last year when he was the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A list of the participants in the meeting showed that it included three members of Ukraine's Parliament and a former Pentagon official, Phillip Karber.

Mr. Karber, who has advocated better equipping Ukraine's military since early in the conflict, told BuzzFeed that he had only meant to confirm to Mr. Inhofe's aides that a second set of images, showing the badly mangled corpses of Ukrainian fighters, were authentic.

As questions were being asked about why the senator's office did not vet the images online itself, Mr. Inhofe — who is perhaps best-known for calling global warming "a hoax" that can be refuted with "biblical evidence" — revealed some apparent confusion about the mechanics of digital photography. He said in a statement that the Ukrainians "gave us these photos in print form, as if" they "came directly from a camera."

The debunking of the senator's evidence, which came as the State Department accused Russia on Friday of deploying artillery and rocket systems around a contested town in eastern Ukraine, was quickly seized upon by Kremlin-run news sites which argue that all proof of Moscow's involvement is fabricated.

While there appears to be much more compelling evidence of Russian military involvement in Ukraine, this is also not the first time that Ukraine's government has presented photographic evidence that was later revealed to be false. In fact, one of the images showing Russian tanks in South Ossetia in 2008 that was provided to Mr. Inhofe was posted on the website of Ukraine's foreign ministry on Aug. 1 as supposed proof that "a long convoy of armored vehicles and several KAMAZ with armed men crossed Ukrainian-Russian border" one day earlier.

Sifting fact from fiction in Ukraine remains a challenge nearly a year after the conflict erupted after weeks of peaceful demonstrations in the capital, Kiev.

Earlier this week, a BBC News investigation of a pivotal moment in the transformation of last year's peaceful protest movement in Kiev into deadly violence — the killing of dozens of protesters on Feb. 20 — suggested that the security forces might not have used deadly force until after they were first shot at by armed supporters of the pro-Western demonstrators.

"Snipers at Maidan: The Untold Ukraine Story," an investigative report on the events of Feb. 20, 2014, in Kiev. BBC Newsnight, via YouTube

Correction: February 14, 2015 

An earlier version of this column misstated the day that old photographs of Russian tanks were published by The Washington Free Beacon. The images were posted online on Thursday, not Wednesday.

http://russia-insider.com/en/ukraine/2015/02/15/3498?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Sergey Lavrov: Russia’s Priorities in Europe and the World

http://www.cirsd.org/russias-priorities-in-europe-and-the-world-sergey-lavrov

Russia's Priorities in Europe and the World Sergey Lavrov

 

Sergey Lavrov is Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

I APPRECIATE the opportunity to address the readers of Horizons, published by the Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development (CIRSD). CIRSD makes valuable contributions to analyzing the most important issues of our time and to searching for effective ways to respond to common global challenges.

International relations are going through a complicated stage of development—as one historical epoch replaces the other, with a new polycentric world order now taking shape. It is a process accompanied by increasing instability—both at global and regional levels. Risks of deeper inter-confessional and inter-civilizational splits are growing. The world economy remains unstable, and might still relapse into crisis.

The global situation has been deteriorating recently, with new dangerous hotbeds of tension emerging, in addition to old conflicts. An upsurge of terrorism and extremism, both in the Middle East and North Africa, are causes of serious concern. The security situation in Europe is all but satisfactory.

We had hoped that a Europe that had endured two World Wars and then the Cold War would finally embark on a road to prosperity, mutually beneficial partnership, and peaceful sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. All the necessary prerequisites were in place. Irreconcilable ideological differences that had divided our continent in the twentieth century had been removed. In November 2014, we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had symbolized them.

Unfortunately, at that juncture the chance to overcome the dark legacy of the previous era, and decisively erase the dividing lines, was missed. The principles set forth in the Helsinki Final Act have not been translated into legally binding documents. Despite Russia's repeated calls and decisions adopted by the OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council, the task of creating a common space of peace, security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area has not been accomplished.

The United States and its Western allies—having proclaimed themselves the "victors" of the Cold War—have repeatedly breached key provisions of international law—attempting to impose their own will across the world. They have since continued the vicious practice of dividing nations into "friends" and "foes," whilst playing dubious zero-sum geopolitical games. Assurances that the North Atlantic Alliance would not expand eastward—which had been given to the leadership of the Soviet Union—turned out to be empty words, for NATO's infrastructure has continuously drawn closer to Russian borders. Under the EU Eastern Partnership program, attempts were made to force the "focus states" to face artificial and false choices ("you're either with us or against us") and destroy their historically diverse ties with Russia. Moreover, visa barriers remain, as an anachronism that hampers the expansion of trade, economic, humanitarian, and cultural ties, and contacts between people. This is by no means Russia's fault.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov conferring during the 2013 G20 Summit in St.Petersburg Photo: Guliver Image / Getty Images

Russia's interests were often ignored—and Russia's initiatives, including the elaboration of a treaty on European security, rejected or shelved. Yet historical experience shows that attempts to isolate Russia invariably had dire consequences for the whole of Europe, while our country's active involvement in the continent's affairs brought about long periods of peace and stable development. 

This negative trend culminated in the Ukrainian crisis. We have repeatedly, and in various formats, warned that attempts to make Kiev choose one vector of its foreign policy—either West or East—bode most serious adverse consequences for Ukraine's still fragile statehood. We were not heard.

As a result of the coup d'état supported by the West, and the subsequent armed seizure of power, Ukraine found itself on the brink of disintegration. Under these circumstances, the freely expressed will of the people of Crimea was simply a response to the actions of ultranationalists, who plunged their country into the abyss of civil war instead of striving to consolidate Ukrainian society.

Despite the complexity of the situation, it is our firm belief that peace and concord can still be reached in Ukraine. An inclusive national dialogue is vital for success, as stipulated in the April 17th, 2014 Geneva Statement by Russia, the European Union, the United States, and Ukraine. Obviously, the rights and interests of all regions and citizens must be fully guaranteed without exception. Russia has consistently supported ongoing efforts within the framework of the Minsk Process, which should primarily include direct contacts between Kiev, Lugansk, and Donetsk, as well as take into account the elections held in Donbass. In order to prevent the further disintegration of Ukraine, it is essential that the country retain its neutral status. We will continue to contribute in every way to a favorable climate for resolving large-scale problems with which the Ukrainian people have to deal. At the same time, it should be understood that attempts to put pressure on Russia through unilateral sanctions—which are illegitimate and have been condemned by the UN General Assembly—will not make us forego what we think is right and just.

Developments in Ukraine also affected the dynamics of Russia's relations with the European Union. Brussels' double standards in assessing the situation in Ukraine, continuing attempts to shift the blame for the tragedy in Ukraine to Russia, and its pursuit of a course of action based on restrictions and threats, have seriously undermined European stability—aggravating the situation through lack of confidence and the absence of a common vision of how to build a reliable Euro-Atlantic security architecture based on equality.

We expect that partners will find the strength to switch to a constructive and pragmatic search for solutions to the accumulated problems. We are convinced that the profound interdependence between European states leaves no reasonable alternative to continued constructive and fruitful cooperation between Russia and the EU.

The European Union is our major trade and economic partner. Russia will remain Europe's key energy supplier for the foreseeable future. Our country has always complied, and will continue to strictly comply, with its obligations in this field.

It is obvious that, without pooling the capabilities of states situated in the Eastern and Western parts of the European continent, Europe will not be able to secure its rightful place in a new international system characterized by increased competition on all tracks. President Vladimir Putin introduced the idea of gradual harmonization of European and Eurasian integration processes—including the proposal to establish a Free Trade Area between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union by 2020.

There can be no doubt that it would be much easier to solve many European problems if we could agree to jointly promote our common strategic goal—namely, the gradual establishment of a common economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok based on the principles of indivisible security and broad cooperation. We have all the necessary prerequisites to accomplish this challenging task, including common civilizational and cultural roots, a high degree of convergence between our economies, the commitment to a single set of trade rules based on WTO standards, and a shared interest in promoting innovation-driven growth.

For the time being, alas, we are witnessing the opposite trend. NATO's instant shift to the rhetoric of confrontation and to curtailing its cooperation with Russia, along with an increased military presence in close proximity to Russia's borders, clearly prove that the Alliance is unable to overcome Cold War stereotypes. Regrettably, today's NATO essentially remains a vestige of the previous era.

In our opinion, the Helsinki +40 Process—launched on the occasion of the OSCE jubilee—could facilitate tackling systemic problems in this area, for the Organization was conceived precisely in order to dismantle barriers of any kind. Obviously, this will require a reaffirmation of the principles of respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in the domestic affairs of participating States—including the inadmissibility of subversive actions, and support for unconstitutional change of government.

It is our hope that the 2015 Serbian OSCE Chairmanship will act along these lines—that Belgrade will pursue a constructive and objective policy providing for a balance of interests of all the Organization's participating States.

The flames of fire flaring up to the south of the OSCE area clearly underscore the necessity of urgent measures aimed at rehabilitating the mechanisms of security, confidence, and cooperation in Greater Europe. Russia has long drawn attention to the threat of a spread of extremism and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. Having gained in strength, radical groups jeopardize the future of entire countries—as is clearly seen in the case of Iraq, Syria, and Libya. In many respects, this situation is a result of the weakening of public institutions in a number of the region's countries (including through external actions); imposing alien transformation formulas on these peoples, whilst ignoring their traditions and national customs; and the dangerous practice of dividing terrorists into 'good' and 'bad.'

Success in combatting terrorists can only be achieved through the joint efforts of the international community, based on the principles of international law and with the UN adopting the central coordination role. We propose that a comprehensive analysis of all the aspects of the problems that have contributed to strengthening extremism and terrorism in the region should be carried out under the auspices of the UN Security Council—including the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such a discussion would help design adequate measures to support the peoples of the region in ensuring peace and prosperity.

Recent experience makes it clear that the chances of success multiply when the international community manages to overcome its disagreements and consolidate its potential to solve existing problems. This is convincingly demonstrated by the successful conclusion of the process of chemical demilitarization in Syria, and by joint efforts to fight the Ebola virus.

Russia's initiatives aimed at finding a solution to the situation surrounding Iran's nuclear program—based on a phased approach and the principle of reciprocity—gained broad international support. It is, therefore, obvious that progress in this area would have a positive influence on the situation in the region, and would promote efforts to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. At the November 23rd and 24th, 2014 meetings in Vienna, the Foreign Ministers of the P5+1 group noted that considerable progress had been made in this respect; this alone, however, is not sufficient for a final agreement. A sequence of further steps was also specified. We intend to continue intensive negotiations in order to achieve a comprehensive settlement as soon as possible.

The situation in Afghanistan also requires joint actions, in part because the ISAF mission is coming to an end. The country is quite unstable and remains a source of serious threats—such as terrorism and drug trafficking—to the territories of neighboring states, including those in Central Asia. We hope that common sense will help overcome irrational obstacles to starting practical cooperation between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. It is important to increase efforts on the Afghan issue in other formats as well, namely within the frameworks of the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Russia is trying to do its best to promote positive and unifying trends in international affairs. That is the main objective of our efforts to foster Eurasian integration processes. The January 1st, 2015 launch of the Eurasian Economic Union, comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia—Armenia will join soon, to be followed later by Kyrgyzstan—is a major contribution to the development and stability of the post-Soviet space and neighboring regions.

With considerable attention being paid to ensuring the sustainability of global growth, Russia is taking an active part in various multilateral fora. In 2013 our country chaired the G20, and a number of our innovative initiatives on ways to accelerate economic growth were approved. The priorities of Australia's G20 Chairmanship in 2014 were largely based on decisions taken at the St. Petersburg Summit.

In 2015 Russia will chair the BRICS—a group playing an increasingly significant role in world affairs. The outcomes of the Fortaleza BRICS Summit enhanced global stability across its diverse dimensions. The establishment of the New Development Bank, with initial authorized capital of $100 billion, as well as the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement of the same initial size, is designed to maintain a balance within the complicated situation of today's international monetary and financial system. A commitment to enhanced, full-fledged, open, and inclusive cooperation—in particular within the economic and financial domains—was reaffirmed at the meeting held by BRICS leaders in Brisbane on the sidelines of the recent G20 Summit. We are making preparations to host the next BRICS Summit in Ufa in July 2015.

Lately, a lot has been said about Russia's pivot to the East. It was, among other things, portrayed as an alternative to the development of our contacts with the West, which have seen a downturn.

In this context, I would like to emphasize the importance of the multiple-vector principle that is the backbone of our country's foreign policy—which is quite natural for a state with a vast territory, history, and traditions, such as ours.

Turning our country towards the Pacific is a national priority for the twenty-first century, and is directly linked to the dynamic development of Russia's eastern regions. We would, of course, prefer to take this step in tandem with steps to strengthen our links with Europe, rather than instead of that. On this issue, however, we cannot but take into consideration the decisions adopted by our European partners.

A positive example of building productive, future-oriented relations is the intense development of Russian-Serbian cooperation, which has by now grown into a strategic partnership. President Putin's October 16th, 2014 visit to Belgrade was the occasion to reach new agreements. Once again, total coincidence or similarity of our approaches to the agenda under discussion was manifest. The profound and durable nature of the historical ties between the peoples of our two countries was reaffirmed by the official visit of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to Serbia, which took place a month later, on November 14th to 16th, 2014.

In this regard, I would like to comment on increasing attempts to impose on Belgrade the false choice of opting for either the EU or Russia. We proceed from the fact that Serbia is a sovereign state pursuing an independent foreign policy, including in respect to the  European integration.

It is clear that there are numerous obstacles along the way to potential membership, from unresolved issues stemming from the Yugoslav conflict (which are being felt across Serbian society), to major and painful reforms being undertaken in various fields. Hence, these and other questions come to mind: to what extent can the European Union—growing weary of its own enlargement—take all these aspects into account, and to what extent can it show patience and tact? The Kosovo problem remains a serious challenge, since Priština's patrons view Serbia's recognition of Kosovo statehood as the "price of admission" to the EU. Belgrade should make independent decisions on all these aspects.

As for Russia, we have said candidly to our partners—in both Serbia and the EU—that, as a matter of principle, Belgrade's advancement towards European integration is not rejected on the premise that this must not undermine Russian-Serbian relations and our joint projects—all the more so since they constitute no threat to Brussels.

The choice to which Serbian leaders refer means both EU membership and maintaining relations of friendship and cooperaton with Russia. This is a sovereign choice which deserves respect. It is based on the opinion of the majority of Serbia's citizens, and fully meets the country's political and economic interests.

We call on our partners in Brussels to behave adequately, and to avoid linking progress in the accession negotiations to breaking Serbia's natural bonds with Russia. Rather, we believe that respectful dialogue and constructive cooperation involving all stakeholders, including contacts between Moscow and Brussels, would help eliminate unnecessary tension, whilst ensuring that Serbia's EU integration process is beneficial for everyone. Should this approach prevail, rather than being perceived as an apple of discord, Serbia could become a bridge linking the West and the East of our continent.

I am convinced that centuries-long traditions of our peoples' kinship, deep mutual feelings of friendship, understanding and trust—which we highly appreciate—will further contribute to developing cooperation between
Russia and Serbia, while enhancing our joint participation in finding solutions to the numerous problems of the modern world on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

In conclusion, I would like to wish the staff of Horizons further success in their creative work, as well as to wish all the best to the magazine's readership.

 

 

 

Canada criticized for ‘unconditional’ Israel support

Canada criticized for 'unconditional' Israel support

1. Home
2. Americas
3. More

Sat Feb 7, 2015 11:12AM

 

Canadian Premier Stephen Harper (R) along with Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu (L)

•  

A Palestinian civil society coalition has slammed Canada's "unconditional" support for Israel, saying the Ottawa government is complicit in the Tel Aviv regime's occupation and aggression against Palestinians.

In a report published on by online the Electronic Intifada on Friday, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) said Canada is escalating its "disinformation campaign and repressive measures" against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The BNC criticized a vow made by Canadian public safety minister, Steven Blaney, last month that Ottawa would continue to combat "anti-Semitism."

"Rather than seeking to hold Israel to account for its war crimes during the recent military assault on Gaza and its intensified colonization of the occupied West Bank," the Canadian government "is further deepening its collaboration with Israel's occupation and launching a shameful, propagandistic attack on free speech in the process," said Rafeef Ziadah, a member of the BNC secretariat.

The BNC also condemned recent deals signed between Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and the Israeli regime.

Ziadah said the Harper government's "continued unconditional support for Israel's colonial policies and its smear campaign against BDS" reveals the "deeply ideological and reactionary character of this government."

The activist added that Ottawa "is sending Israel the message that it can act with total impunity in violating human rights and international law."

Canada suppressing free speech

The Palestinian coalition further criticized Canada for muzzling critics and suppressing the rights of its own civil groups.

Ziadah noted that "while claiming to defend free speech" Canada has been "among the most repressive in the west; it has gone farther than most in suppressing free speech and infringing the rights of its own civil society, including trade unions, community and faith groups, to participate in human rights campaigning, as in boycotts against Israel's injustices."

The BDS campaign is part of international efforts to pressure Tel Aviv to stop aggression against Palestinians, including illegal constructions in the occupied Palestinian territory and an ongoing assault against Gaza.

CAH/MKA

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/07/396546/Canada-slammed-for-supporting-Israel

Kosovo: Set the Trojan Horse on Fire

Dispatch

Set the Trojan Horse on Fire

As Serbian influence creeps back into Kosovo, protests have rocked the young nation -- and may bring its government to a grinding halt.

• By Valerie Hopkins
• February 4, 2015
•  
• 

PRISTINA, Kosovo — This is the winter of discontent in Kosovo. The lingering euphoria over independence in 2008 has given way to frustration with economic stagnation and political squabbling. Unemployment sits at 45 percent, and an estimated 500,000 of Kosovo's 1.8 million citizens — the vast majority of whom are ethnic Albanians — live on less than $2 a day. On Jan. 24 and Jan. 27, some 15,000 Kosovars took to the streets to protest corruption and poverty. But they also wanted to register their frustration with what they see as the outsized role Serbia still plays in the country more than 15 years after a war fought so that Kosovo could secede from its larger neighbor.

The protests were sparked by Aleksandar Jablanovic, an ethnic Serb minister in Kosovo's government, who called members of an ethnic Albanian association of war victims "savages" after they blocked the path of ethnic Serb pilgrims who were trying to celebrate Orthodox Christmas. The area where the pilgrims were traveling saw some of the strongest fighting in the 1998-1999 Kosovo War, and thousands of people from the region remain missing. Adding fuel to the fire, Jablanovic later publicly questioned the well-documented record of war crimes committed by Serbian forces, saying he "didn't know" whether they had occurred.

Shortly thereafter, Kosovo's recently installed prime minister backtracked on a plan to nationalize Trepca, a mine rich in zinc, silver, and lead, in the face of opposition from Serbia, which also has a claim to Trepca because Belgrade managed it during Yugoslavia's final years. The decision was seen as a blow to both the economic prospects and the national pride of Kosovo's Albanians.

"We're protesting against the general situation in the country, both economic and social, but also against the statements made by Jablanovic and for the protection of Trepca," protester Latif Selmani, 48, a salesman, said at the Jan. 27 protest. "Shame on the government for allowing the honor of the war martyrs to be desecrated," said Drita Berisha, a nurse. "We want the removal of Jablanovic!"

One hundred seventy people were injured on the second day of unrest as protesters threw rocks at the building housing the prime minister's cabinet and the Foreign Ministry. Police responded with tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets.

The scene reminded many of the massive protests of the 1980s and 1990s against the regime of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic.

The scene reminded many of the massive protests of the 1980s and 1990s against the regime of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic. The recent protests, which occupied the center of Pristina, Kosovo's capital, represent the worst unrest since Kosovo declared independence seven years ago.

Kosovo is Europe's greatest experiment in post-World War II state-building. After the war ended in 1999, the country was administered by the United Nations until a unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia in 2008. Then, the European Union deployed its most expensive mission to date on the continent — the EU Rule of Law Mission — to run Kosovo's judicial system and oversee its rule of law. Until 2012, the tiny country remained supervised by an international diplomat. To date, it has been officially recognized by 110 countries, but tensions with Serbia, which argues vociferously that Kosovo remains within its sovereign borders, still run high.

In April 2013, Kosovo and Serbia signed an agreement, brokered by the European Union, that would finally put four northern municipalities, which seek unification with Serbia, under Pristina's control. Recently, Serbia received, via another Brussels-brokered deal that falls under the 2013 agreement, a renewed role in running Kosovo. (Kosovo and Serbia are in ongoing negotiations with the EU about their relations, and talks on implementation of the 2013 agreement are set to resume on Feb. 9 after a 10-month hiatus.) Kosovo's four northern municipalities, which are predominantly Serbian, participated in the country's elections for the first time, sending representatives whose allegiance remains with Belgrade to the central government in Pristina — and thus effectively giving Serbia a voice in Kosovo's administration.

The development has made the normalization of relations between the two countries — a key requirement for EU accession for both — highly unpopular in Kosovo. Pristina-based political analyst Leon Malazogu said Kosovars are losing hope of true independence. "As long as there is Brussels, and dialogue open, you can swallow it for a while, but … I don't think Kosovo has done all this to go from being a province of Serbia to a colony."

The agreement has also added fuel to the mission of Serbian List, a political party founded last year in Kosovo that refuses to recognize statehood. Supported by Belgrade and led by Jablanovic, the party won several municipal and national seats in elections last summer thanks to the ethnic Serb vote in Kosovo's north; members also hold ministerial positions, including the role of deputy prime minister.

Serbian List's presence in the government has spurred, in turn, a backlash all its own: Many ethnic Albanians are angry that they now have government ministers supportive of — and supported by — Belgrade, and they believe that Kosovo's government is kowtowing to Serbia in EU talks. "People have started to realize that with this never-ending dialogue with Serbia, Kosovo is just becoming worse and worse," said Visar Ymeri, a leader in the opposition party Vetevendosje ("Self-Determination"), the primary organizer of the recent protests.

Vetevendosje, considered a radical movement by many Western embassies because of its protest tactics, is against the Brussels-mediated dialogue and advocates closing the northern border with Serbia until Belgrade gives Kosovo full recognition. With echoes of Greece's Syriza party, Vetevendosje has rejected the meddling of big Western powers in Kosovo, opposing independence with international oversight and raising concerns over murky business dealings with Western corporations. Despite having placed third in national elections last year, its opposition to dialogue with Serbia, which has yet to bear much fruit for ordinary Kosovars, has contributed to its rising popular approval. And as anger over Serbian List grows, Vetevendosje's base has extended to older, more traditional voters. One of its key functionaries recently became mayor of Pristina.

"Serbian List is directly tied to the politics of [Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic's] Serbian Progressive Party," said Pristina-based political analyst Belul Beqaj. "It plays the role of the Trojan horse in the Kosovar political scene."

Jablanovic's "savages" remark gave an uncertain and scared population exactly what it feared — and expected — from the new party. If his remark was the spark, the announcement that Prime Minister Isa Mustafa was backtracking on a plan to nationalize the Trepca mine was the wind that stoked the fire.

Trepca is a rambling complex of 40 mines, including a few minor sites in Serbia; its deposits could be worth 10 billion euros, according to Kosovo's Independent Commission for Mines and Minerals. The mine is also steeped in the history of Kosovo's struggle for independence. Disputes over Trepca in 1989 resulted in 1,000 employees striking in pursuit of more autonomy for Kosovo, one of the first episodes of unrest as Yugoslavia began to unravel. "Yugoslavia started falling apart in those mines," said Beqaj, emphasizing the sentimental connection both Serbs and Kosovars have with Trepca.

The mine has floundered in the postwar era due to ownership disputes between Kosovo and Serbia and a lack of investment. It is a source of tension because both Pristina and Belgrade lay claim to it. Trepca's operational center is in the divided northern city of Mitrovica — Serbs live on one side of a bridge, Albanians on the other — and the mine remains one of the most potent symbols of Kosovo's schisms. Nationalization, many of Kosovars believe, would symbolize Pristina's power to counter Serbian economic and political influence.

Like the protests at Trepca in the 1980s, the unrest today "could serve as a catalyst for re-examination" of contemporary policies, Beqaj said.

Nenad Rasic, a Serb who recognizes Kosovo as his country and served in the last government as minister of labor and social welfare, said he worries that, because of the protests, ethnic relations will worsen and there may be a renewed flight of Serbs from the country. "For the first time, I am not optimistic for the maintenance of the Serb community in Kosovo," he said. Malazogu, the Pristina-based political analyst, shares his concern.

"We haven't seen retribution. Thankfully, no Serb has been attacked," he said. "But the climate will deteriorate."

"We haven't seen retribution. Thankfully, no Serb has been attacked," he said. "But the climate will deteriorate."

Vetevendosje delivered an ultimatum to Prime Minister Mustafa to dismiss Jablanovic by the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 3, or else a planned 48-hour protest would go ahead starting Wednesday. The minister was fired Tuesday, but he intimated that there would be trouble: "The Serbian List did not enter the government so it could consider the requests and stances of Vetevendosje," said Jablanovic, vowing that his party would respond after a consultation with the Serbian prime minister, on Thursday. The party may decide to leave the governing coalition, which could handicap Mustafa's ability to lead.

Ousting Jablanovic also didn't quell the anger that Vetevendosje has harnessed. Following his dismissal, the party said that the protests, while momentarily postponed, will ultimately continue until Serbia relinquishes its claim to Trepca. "Serbia's requests for Kosovo are never-ending," said Ymeri. "There must be a stopping point. Otherwise, we are not going to be an independent country."

Una Hajdari contributed reporting.

 

Holocaust commemoration marred by political posturing

Published time: January 27, 2015 09:45
Edited time: January 27, 2015 16:47

Get short URL

 

Oswiecim January 26, 2015 (Reuters / Laszlo Balogh)

Tags

Conflict, History, Politics

Many nations on Tuesday are commemorating the crimes of the Holocaust by Nazi Germany. An international gathering at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland is missing the leader of the nation, whose predecessor liberated its prisoners 70 years ago.

The event is being attended by 12 presidents, five prime ministers some 300 survivors of the camp, where more than 1.4 million people, most of them European Jews, were killed over five years of Nazi rule.

This year's commemoration of the Holocaust tragedy is of special significance, since it's likely to be the last major anniversary which most survivors will be able to attend. The youngest ex-prisoners of the death camp are now in their 70s.

Speaking on the eve of the anniversary, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed that Auschwitz is a reminder of where the path of hatred can lead to.

"Tomorrow is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau camp by Soviet troops," she said. "Today the word 'Auschwitz' is a synonym for a mechanism of mass persecution and murder used by the national-socialists."

 

"We Germans feel great shame for what happened. Germans are guilty of the suffering and the deaths of millions of people, and some Germans tolerated it. We don't want to hear slogans full of hatred against people who are believers or believe in different religions," the German leader added.

Merkel's speech blasted forces in Germany supporting the self-styled 'anti-Islamization' movement PEGIDA, thousands of members of which march in several German cities every week. The movement poses itself as countering hostile immigrants defying the German way of life. Many German politicians see them as xenophobic and leaning to an ideology not unlike that of the Nazis.

 

A survivor of the former German Nazi concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz reacts as he visits the camp in Oswiecim January 26, 2015 (Reuters / Laszlo Balogh)

The meeting of foreign dignitaries in Poland is marred by the political crisis which plunged relations between Russia and Western nations to their worst point since the Cold War. Poland chose not to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to Auschwitz in an apparent political move to highlight his position.

http://rt.com/news/226543-poland-auschwitz-commemoration-putin/

's invitation is awaiting your response

would like to connect on LinkedIn. How would you like to respond? Confirm you know You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn

Hi mika123., I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Miroslav Confirm that you know Miroslav Miroslav Antić Nuclear Operator at Ontario Power Generation Ontario, Canada You received an invitation to connect. LinkedIn will use your email address to make suggestions to our members in features like People You May Know. Unsubscribe This email was intended for mika123. serbian. Learn why we included this. If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.

Inside Obama's Secret Outreach to Russia

3252 Dec 31, 2014 10:59 AM EST

By Josh Rogin

President Barack Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine.

This month, Obama's National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

"I don't think that anybody at this point is under the impression that a wholesale reset of our relationship is possible at this time, but we might as well test out what they are actually willing to do," a senior administration official told me. "Our theory of this all along has been, let's see what's there. Regardless of the likelihood of success."

Leading the charge has been Secretary of State John Kerry. This fall, Kerry even proposed going to Moscow and meeting with Putin directly. The negotiations over Kerry's trip got to the point of scheduling, but ultimately were scuttled because there was little prospect of demonstrable progress.

In a separate attempt at outreach, the White House turned to an old friend of Putin's for help. The White House called on former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to discuss having him call Putin directly, according to two officials. It's unclear whether Kissinger actually made the call. The White House and Kissinger both refused to comment for this column.

Kerry has been the point man on dealing with Russia because his close relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represents the last remaining functional diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow. They meet often, often without any staff members present, and talk on the phone regularly. Obama and Putin, on the other hand, are known to have an intense dislike for each other and very rarely speak.

In several conversations with Lavrov, Kerry has floated an offer to Russia that would pave the way for a partial release of some of the most onerous economic sanctions. Kerry's conditions included Russia adhering to September's Minsk agreement and ceasing direct military support for the Ukrainian separatists. The issue of Crimea would be set aside for the time being, and some of the initial sanctions that were put in place after Crimea's annexation would be kept in place.

"We are willing to isolate the issues of Donetsk and Luhansk from the issue of Crimea," another senior administration official told me, naming two regions in Eastern Ukraine under separatist control. "If there was a settlement on Donetsk and Luhansk, there could be a removal of some sanctions while maintaining sanctions with regard to Crimea. That represents a way forward for Putin."

Meanwhile, Kerry has been proposing increased U.S.-Russian cooperation on a wide range of international issues. Earlier this month, he invited Lavrov to a last-minute diplomatic confab in Rome to discuss the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After one meeting with Lavrov in Paris in October, Kerry announced that he had discussed potential U.S.-Russian cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Syria and Yemen. But the apparent warming was overshadowed by Lavrov's quick denial of Kerry's claim that Russia had agreed to assist in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State in Iraq.

Kerry has seemed more enthusiastic about mending ties with Russia than Obama himself. After the president gave a blistering critique of Russian behavior in a major United Nations speech, saying that "Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition," Kerry urged Lavrov to ignore his boss's remarks, according to Lavrov. "Kerry said we have so many serious things to discuss that of course that was unfortunate, let's not focus on that," Lavrov told Russian reporters.

State Department officials insist that Kerry is clear-eyed about the challenges of trying to work with Russia, but that he believes there is no other responsible option than to see what can be accomplished.

"Secretary Kerry is not advocating internally or with Russia for a reset in the relationship, and in fact in meetings he has taken a strong and at times skeptical stance," one senior State Department official told me. "As the nation's chief diplomat he is simply always exploring ways to make relationships more productive."

There is also a belief among many both inside the State Department and the White House that sanctions are working. The Russian economy is tanking, albeit due largely to collapsing oil prices and not targeted punishments. One senior administration official argued that absent the sanctions, Putin might have been even more aggressive in Ukraine. Moreover, this official said, the sanctions need time to work and might yet prove to have greater effect on Putin's decision-making in the months ahead: "We'll see how they feel as their economy continues to deteriorate and the Ukrainian economy refuses to collapse."

If the Russians are getting ready to cave, they aren't showing it. Putin remains defiant and Russian military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels continues. The Russian leadership has been rejecting Kerry's overtures both in public and private. Diplomatic sources said that Lavrov has refused to even discuss Kerry's conditions for partial easing of sanctions. And Putin has made a hobby of bashing the U.S. in public remarks. 

To many of the administration's critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, pursuing engagement with Moscow is based on naivety and wishful thinking.

"It's a strategy worthy in the finest tradition of Neville Chamberlain," incoming Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain told me. "I think the Russians are doing fine. Meanwhile, what price has Vladimir Putin paid? Very little."

The legislative branch has also been active on Russia this year, but its efforts run counter to the administration's policy and sometimes have the indirect effect of putting more roadblocks in front of the Obama-Kerry push to find a way forward.

On Dec. 18, Obama reluctantly signed a bill authorizing new Russia sanctions and military aid to Ukraine that was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Afterward, the White House awkwardly said that the legislation did not signify any change in policy. 

And this week, the State Department sanctioned four more Russian officials, but not over Ukraine. The officials were added to a list of human rights violators under the Sergei Magnitsky Act of 2012, named after the anti-corruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison. In response, the Russian foreign ministry issued a statement saying that the Magnitsky Act sanctions "place in question the prospects for bilateral cooperation in resolving the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian crisis, and other acute international issues."

These latest punishments show that it may be impossible to de-link the problems in the bilateral relationship from the opportunities, as the Obama administration wants to do. They also show that there will always be chances for those in Washington and Moscow who want to stoke the tensions to do so, jeopardizing any progress.

Some experts believe that any plan to warm U.S.-Russian relations is unlikely to succeed because it doesn't have the full support of either president.

"It's very clear that between the Putin Kremlin and the Obama White House there is a very bad chemistry. Its not a question of simply distrust, it's a question of intense dislike between the two leaders," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest.

Also, some experts feel, placing the diplomacy in the Kerry-Lavrov channel dooms its outcome, because the Russians know that Kerry himself has no power to make major decisions and Lavrov has to be careful not to be seen as cozying up to the U.S.

"The more Kerry creates a perception he has a special relationship with Lavrov, the more he puts Lavrov in a difficult position with officials in his own capital, starting with Putin," said Simes. "It's clear that when Kerry deals with Lavrov and hopes that because they have overlapping interests, that would allow cooperation where useful, that is not a model of relationship that Putin is prepared to accept."

Obama has made it clear that in his last two years in office he is prepared to make big moves on foreign policy even if they face political or legislative opposition, such as normalizing relations with Cuba or pursuing a nuclear deal with Iran. But when it comes to Russia, he is unwilling to place his own credibility behind any outreach to his nemesis Putin.

The administration's cautious engagement with Moscow is logical: Why not seek a balance in a complicated and important bilateral relationship? But by choosing a middle ground between conciliation and confrontation -- not being generous enough to entice Russia's cooperation yet not being tough enough to stop Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe -- Obama's policy risks failing on both fronts. 

To contact the author on this story:
Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-31/inside-obamas-secret-outreach-to-russia